Siebert v. Wisconsin American Mutual Insurance
797 N.W.2d 484
Wis.2011Background
- Koehler lent her father's car to Raddatz to go to the Food Pantry; instead, they took additional passengers to a Rhinelander party.
- An accident occurred on Highway 17; Raddatz and passengers were injured, with Raddatz and another passenger killed.
- The vehicle was insured under a Wisconsin American Mutual Insurance Company policy issued to Koehler's father; Raddatz did not qualify as an insured due to exceeding permission.
- Siebert filed a direct action against Wisconsin American alleging Raddatz's negligent operation caused her injuries, and Lynette Siebert's damages derivative of her daughter's injuries.
- The circuit court bifurcated coverage from liability/damages; the jury found Raddatz exceeded the permission scope; Siebert and others amended complaints to add negligent entrustment against Koehler; the circuit court granted summary judgment denying coverage for entrustment; the court of appeals reversed; this court granted review and now reverses the court of appeals.
- The dissent below argues that there is coverage for negligent entrustment under the policy language; this opinion addresses that view and affirms lack of coverage for entrustment under the independent concurrent cause framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Koehler's negligent entrustment constitutes an independent concurrent cause of Siebert's injuries. | Siebert: entrustment is an independent covered risk not requiring Raddatz's negligent operation. | Wisconsin American: entrustment requires the occurrence of an excluded risk (Raddatz's operation) to be actionable, so no coverage. | No coverage under the policy for entrustment as an independent concurrent cause. |
| Whether Siebert's negligent entrustment claim is barred by claim or issue preclusion due to prior judgment. | Siebert: preclusion does not apply to entrustment claim and underlying facts. | Wisconsin American: preclusion bars relitigation of related issues from the prior judgment. | Not reached/undetermined due to ruling on coverage. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bankert v. Threshermen's Mut. Ins. Co., 110 Wis. 2d 469 (Wis. 1983) (negligent entrustment requires entrustee's negligent act for liability; exclusionary rules analyzed)
- Malone v. Gaengel, 221 Wis.2d 92 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998) (negligent entrustment not covered where liability hinges on entrustee's noncovered conduct)
- Partridge, 514 P.2d 123 (Cal. 1973) (gun modification exception to automobile exclusion; independent of use of auto governs coverage)
- Estate of Jones v. Smith, 2009 WI App 88, 320 Wis.2d 470 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009) (independent concurrent cause framework discussed in multi-case context)
- Zarnstorff v. Neenah Creek Custom Trucking, 2010 WI App 147, 330 Wis.2d 174 (Wis. Ct. App. 2010) (application of independent concurrent cause analysis after determining exclusions)